Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Ruhlin had a draw with Jeffries, was a top contender, and fought Jeff in 1901. McVea was 17 at that point and Martin I think still shy of his 20th birthday.

Why really keep harping on Finnegan? The old Ring Record Book didn't even consider it a defense. Adam Pollack's conclusion "though it was only scheduled for ten rounds and appears to have been a non-title tune-up" coming between defenses against Sharkey and Corbett. I judge the Finnegan fight adding nothing and subtracting nothing from Jeff's legacy and being totally beside the point concerning Martin and McVea.

According to Pollack, based on research, Jeff fought Ruhlin in 1901 because Fitz claimed to be retired while doing a theatrical tour. "Bob claimed to be retired. (p. 450) "Fitz claims to be permanently retired." (p. 452)

 

Except Adam Pollack quotes him when he won the title in 1899 as saying, "I do not bar anyone, black or white, old or young."

He definitely changed his tune. Pollack gives a reason which I addressed in a previous post.

That quote seems to have come from the Police Gazette.

 

Ruhlin had been half killed by Fitz why didn't Jeffries defend against him?

After Fitzsimmmons ko'd both Sharkey and Ruhlin he publicly asked for a title chance against Jeffries,leaning over the top rope and begging Jeffries to say yes!
The Finnegan fight was a title defence, I judge it as a no hoper getting a chance he didn't deserve and taking the place of several, much more deserving challengers.
I don't care how old they were I'd sooner Jeffries have defended against young challengers who had good records than old men coming out of 6 years retirement! You seem to have an excuse for every negative action Jeffries made and I'm not buying any of them!

 

Oh please Jeffries would not defend his title against a black challenger and anyone who disputes that is a fool!
Good God Almighty he made dozens of public statements to that effect! Do you know, I think I'm bailing here.

 

Are we really holding 19th century people to 21st century standards? Guess Trump is more legitimate than George Washington and FDR...

Blaming Jeffries for racism, from the comfort of your 21st century existence is a bit pretentious.

See me when you grow up in a racist country, dominated by racist laws, racist values, and severe racial discrimination. Try growing up in a country where being a voice for equality meant you were a soft, hippy like, wildly idealistic traitor, and were the target of physical threats. Try disavowing racism in that environment, and then talk.

In Jeffries day, you paid a hefty toll for talking about equality.
Sometimes with your life.

These days, it's the opposite. You receive gratitude, respect, and virtue for advocating equality.

Compared to people in Jeffries day, you aint paying jack ****, when you talk about equality. It's cheap. In Jeffries day, it wasn't cheap. A statement on racial equality could dictate a life of obstacles and danger. Way to ignore the difference.

 

Have you read Adam Pollack? This fight would have had to take place within a week because the boxing law was going out of effect and boxing would be illegal in New York. Jeff was not in training, had an injured arm, and was preparing for a theatrical tour. It was a grandstand play by Fitz. When feelers were put out to Fitz for a match months later, Fitz said he was retired.

"I'd sooner Jeffries defended against young challengers who had good records than old men coming out of 6 years retirement."

McVea was 16 and hadn't had a fight yet when Jeff defended against Corbett in 1900. Martin was still shy of his 19th birthday. I wonder why folks at the time were more interested in seeing Jeffries fight the ex-champion who had beaten Sullivan. And Corbett's last fight had been two years earlier. Pollack goes into great detail about Corbett training six months for this fight with observers watching his workouts thinking that he looked better than he had in the better part of a decade while sparring with Ruhlin.

"You seem to have an excuse for every negative action"

Most aren't actions and aren't negative anyway.

"I'm not buying any of them."

What you think is your business, but I make up my own mind.

 

I am not disputing that he reached that position.

I am only reprinting the quote which is in Adam Pollack's biography.

 

Jeffries was impressively candid about his reasons for drawing the colour line.

Had he hidden behind some convoluted excuse, he would be keeping us guessing today.

As things stand he said exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it, and probably didn’t care what anybody thought about it!

 

History has damned the champions and promoters who drew the colour bar, but did them perhaps have a point.

Looking at the tragic events that followed the Johnson Jeffries bout, perhaps some of them were just trying to protect the public from violent disorder.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Rich. Try learning something.

In those days it was common for smaller fighters to fight hwts. Why? Large ring size and runners canvas made it very difficult to catch these very quick great fighters. They could move box with ease avoiding damage simply because they were in too big a ring and too quick.

As an example. Put Vauev in a 21 foot ring with the Ali who fought Liston the second time. Huge size difference right? How does the big man lay a glove on the much smaller fighter? Not going to happen.

With Jeffries fighting Corbett he is fighting one of the trickiest boxers ever to live. In a very large ring how do you as the bigger but much slower fighter land cleanly? Only by the bout being over a long distance did Jeffries avoid a defeat. Take the very amateurish Joshua and put him in a 21 foot ring with Ali at 201. The ring conditions greatly favor the smaller fighter.

 

Yes, he was incredibly candid.

He said that blacks smelled so bad that it was an advantage when they fought white fighters, driving the whites into unconsciousness from their stench.

I would label that as candid.